Yeah, but the question is just how much income redistribution. How much is justified?
Yep. Agreed. And this is admittedly pretty extreme - almost an NDP action. So even though I am trying to focus on the economic numbers and macro flows, there is a clear (and many, even on the left, would say cynical) political motive.
You miss the point.
I'm not saying people are glad they only make $20k-$30k. I'm saying that if they have a choice about voting for a party which is going to redistribute someone else's income to them, or one which says no, we ain't gonna do that so much, they'll choose the first party. Why not? It's human nature.
Except.... they don't. Look south of the border and explain to me how poor whites vote for a party that cuts healthcare, and enforces right-to-work laws. This wasn't the case in the mid-20th century either.
This program has zip to do with economics. It is a political project designed to get votes for the Liberal government. And the people who don't benefit yet support it aren't doing so for economic reasons but for moral reasons. "Oh, those poor people deserve a 'living wage'! And those filthy rich bastards have too much money anyway!
Can't disagree there, but everything you are saying is obvious. I find the economic numbers angle interesting, if there's anything to be said there. But - interestingly - there doesn't seem to be much more for us to say after all.
Anyway, no skin off my nose. I mean, I won't be paying it, heh heh."
You have, I think, brought yourself up from lower wage into higher one. People like me, born into the upper middle class, and living in it their entire careers see tax-paying as the cost of good citizenship. Neither view is right or wrong, nor moral, nor immoral. I have been in the highest tax bracket since I was in my mid-twenties I think.
You can't, as much as you want to, divorce the moral aspects of this. This is done for political reasons and supported for moral reasons. I'm not casting aspersions or moralizing. I'm pointing out that redistributing money for the purpose of ensuring no one starves or freezes to death in the dark is different from redistributing income as part of a Marxist income redistribution program.
Fine. Have your morals, but don't try to get me to buy into them. I was brought up as a very liberal Christian, and that's in my DNA. The system works because two alternating moral systems create positive tension to make it work: charity on the one side, hard work on the other.
I am just saying that there is no point in people discussing morality and trying to shame others on here. It's like liberals screaming racism at conservatives for policies they rightly see as racist. Whatever the point may be, it won't go anywhere.
Yeah, well I have never had a problem judging people, good or bad. I know how easy it is to just go along as you've been going along, and doing a crappy job for years just because, well, it's what you know, and it's become what you're comfortable in, as long as it pays enough to continue your present lifestyle. And it's easy to say ah, no one will hire me anyway or what's the point in trying to upgrade my skills or apply for that job. I've seen it many, many, many times. And when you got that crummy job in the first place (we're not talking about kids) largely because you didn't finish high school, because you don't have a hell of a lot of get-up-and-go, well, you ain't going nowhere fast without a lot of incentive.
You think this provides any incentive? I think it provides a disincentive.
The minimum wage isn't an incentive.
You don't have a problem judging people, but you don't like people calling you racist for your position on immigration policies right ? That's the problem: there is nothing to be discussed if you're going to cast moral aspersions on things where there is a subjective element. I don't know how to put it clearly, but I hope you know what I mean.
Discussion about morality goes nowhere.